Validity of the disciplinary action taken against a student of the 3rd respondent College, resulting in her dismissal is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner was a first year BA English Student in the 3rd respondent College during the academic year 2006-07. It is stated that her father is a selection grade Lecturer in Malayalam in the same college and that he had published a book criticizing the church. This resulted in the 4th respondent, the Principal of the College, having enmity against her father. It is stated that her father had lodged Ext.P1 complaint to the Bishop of Palai and when the petitioner was also harassed by the 4th respondent, her mother made Ext.P2 complaint to the 4th respondent himself.

3. Petitioner was elected to the college union as its Vice Chairman and consequent on the 4th respondent’s enmity to her father, she was being harassed and isolated. According to her when the College Day Celebrations were cancelled, students blamed and accused her of being responsible for the same and that in order to project the real facts and also to establish her innocence she decided to resort to a sit in protest in the office verandah of the college on 12.2007, carrying a placard. On the same day, Ext.P3 order of suspension was issued by the 4th respondent placing the petitioner under suspension pending an enquiry.

4. It is stated that on receipt of Ext.P3, petitioner submitted Ext.P5 appeal before the Board for Adjudication of Students Grievances of the M.G University. She had also submitted Ext.P4 before the 4th respondent requesting to expeditiously forward her appeal to the Board. In the meantime, by his order dated 17.02.2007, the 4th respondent appointed an enquiry commission consisting of 3 teachers of the college to enquire into the allegations of misconducts against the petitioner. The enquiry commission issued Ext.P7, memo of charges with the following allegations;

.(1) That on 13.02.2007 at 9.45 a.m. onwards she had conducted a Satyagraha on the Verandah in front of the principal’s office, defying an order prohibiting the same, carrying a placard, with the intention of committing indiscipline and causing obstruction to the functioning of the college and the office of the principal.

.(2) That when she conducted the Satyagraha she had distributed leaflets to the students.

.(3) That on 15.02.2007 she had convened a press conference at the Kottayam Press Club and made defamatory statements which were published in newspapers such as Mathrubhumi and Desabhimani daily on 16.02.2007.

It was alleged that by the aforesaid conducts she had committed grave misconducts and brought ill-repute to the college and obstructed the smooth functioning of the college. It was also alleged that by her aforesaid conduct she had committed misconducts as provided in Rule 5 (d) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Students Code of Conduct Rules 2005 and Rules 9 and 11 of the Rules of General Discipline of the College. By Ext.P7 she was called upon to show cause against the above said allegations of misconducts.

5. On receipt of Ext.P7 Memo of Charges, petitioner submitted Ext,P8 explanation. A reading of the explanation shows that the petitioner had accepted the allegations as correct, but however, was justifying her conduct. According to her she was protesting against the injustice meted out to her and that the Satyagraha she had conducted did not in any manner obstruct the functioning of the college or the principal’s office. According to her she has decided to resort to Satyagraha on being informed of the cancellation of the college day celebration and that on account of the serious illness that she is suffering, as she could not sit in a place exposed to the sun’s heat, she chose to sit in the Verandah of the Principal’s office. She says that all that she wanted was to bring to the notice of the college authorities their mistakes.

6. It is also stated that during the course of her Satyagraha, some of her t